Share This
One More Thing Before We Go: The Pic On Your Obit
Hmm, I must admit that I find the following trend disturbing:
A new study finds that the obituary photographs people choose are getting progressively younger – even as we’re dying older. The number of outdated obit pics more than doubled between 1967 and 1997.
As morbid as I am, it might surprise you to know that I never thought about my obituary pic. But I do know that I wouldn’t want a picture from my 20s representing me at the end of my life.
And I found it sad that so many magazines and websites chose to run a younger picture of Paul Newman with his obit rather than remembering him as the handsome old man that he was before cancer took his life.
What do you think is causing this trend? Is it our American obsession with youth? Are we really this vain? Or is it the value system of the people we leave behind? Do they just want to remember us as young and shiny?
And how far will this trend go, I wonder. I’m scared that I’ll go to somebody’s funeral only to find a picture of her or him as a child on the bulletin. That’s all.
see, i disagree with you on this. yes, it is extreme to use a photo of a child if the deceased is in their 80's. but to the other extreme, do you have to use a photo of the deceased that was taken just before their death?
i think the photo can be from the last 15% of their life (i can't think of a better way to phrase it – haha). so if someone who were 25 died, they could use a photo from 22 or older. an 80 year old could use a photo from 68 or older. and so on. in other words, why does the photo need to represent how you died (in newman's case, how cancer ravaged his body) as opposed to how you looked when you were most living? i think it has less to do with vanity and more to do with vitality.
another extreme: if i get hit by a bus and then die a year later, i certainly don't want the photograph in my obit to be taken in the last year of my life…
I like your 15% solution. And I agree that it doesn't have to be a pic of someone who's been ravaged by cancer or accident, but I thought the Newman case was really extreme, b/c they were using pics from his 20s and I'm concerned that this is where this whole trend is leading.
oooohhhhh! i didn't realize they were using pics from his twenties!!! that's ridiculous. i wouldn't call that vanity, just stupid. to me, that's as if to say he never topped what he accomplished in his twenties, which of course simply isn't true.
see, i disagree with you on this. yes, it is extreme to use a photo of a child if the deceased is in their 80's. but to the other extreme, do you have to use a photo of the deceased that was taken just before their death?
i think the photo can be from the last 15% of their life (i can't think of a better way to phrase it – haha). so if someone who were 25 died, they could use a photo from 22 or older. an 80 year old could use a photo from 68 or older. and so on. in other words, why does the photo need to represent how you died (in newman's case, how cancer ravaged his body) as opposed to how you looked when you were most living? i think it has less to do with vanity and more to do with vitality.
another extreme: if i get hit by a bus and then die a year later, i certainly don't want the photograph in my obit to be taken in the last year of my life…
I like your 15% solution. And I agree that it doesn't have to be a pic of someone who's been ravaged by cancer or accident, but I thought the Newman case was really extreme, b/c they were using pics from his 20s and I'm concerned that this is where this whole trend is leading.
oooohhhhh! i didn't realize they were using pics from his twenties!!! that's ridiculous. i wouldn't call that vanity, just stupid. to me, that's as if to say he never topped what he accomplished in his twenties, which of course simply isn't true.
For most people it seems to be vanity. But I will say that if someone was famous in their youth then never heard from again, it's reasonable to show the photo of them that people would most recognize.
Paul Newman, on the other hand, was famous across 6 decades, and I don't think it was his own vanity — maybe nostalgia? Hell, they could have used the salad dressing label — that's recognizable.
For most people it seems to be vanity. But I will say that if someone was famous in their youth then never heard from again, it's reasonable to show the photo of them that people would most recognize.
Paul Newman, on the other hand, was famous across 6 decades, and I don't think it was his own vanity — maybe nostalgia? Hell, they could have used the salad dressing label — that's recognizable.